Hallo Peter, Am Dienstag, 10. August 2004 um 22:58 schriebst du:
> I wrote: >> Reid Thompson wrote: >> > well -- i just redid the entire thing, with the correct spelling and >> > your original post works >> > >> > $ ./load >> > pseudo_stub.dll ok >> > foo.dll ok >> >> That's strange, did my original post first get you error 998 for >> pseudo_stubs.dll and now, after some juggling, the same thing is ok? > Ah, now I see it. You have to be careful with your typing. > pseudo_stubs.dll (with one s in the end) is the name that fails. > Apparently both pseudo_stub.dll (no s) and psuedo_stubs.dll (bad > spelling) work. And pseudo_stubss.dll (double s) definitely works, that > I have tried myself. You have checked what error 998 actually is? #define ERROR_NOACCESS 998L I cannot believe that it depends on the name of a DLL whether it can be dlopened or not. There must be another error with your test! Consider this (with source from your first posting): $ gcc -shared -o pseudo_stubs.dll foo.c $ gcc -o load load.c $ ./load pseudo_stubs.dll ok foo.dll dlopen: Win32 error 126 $ cp pseudo_stubs.dll foo.dll $ ./load pseudo_stubs.dll ok foo.dll ok Gerrit -- =^..^= -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
